All things books, all the time

The Book Was Better

Right?

It’s one of those sayings that you hear ALL THE TIME. The book was better than the movie adaptation. And probably more than 90 percent of the time it is. Because it’s the original and it’s difficult to match the original in any medium.

I’m here to ask if you’ve ever thought otherwise. I’ve written before on here that I hold the movie adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the original) in much higher regard than the book. I just about hated the book. But I’m not sure if I can really think of another movie that really surpassed the book in its brilliance. There may be a few out there, but I’m not thinking of any.

Perhaps the original Jurassic Park movie comes very close to matching the first book. Perhaps. Or maybe the LOTR movies? Though I haven’t read all the books

Can you think of any movies adapted from books that actually came out better?

Post navigation

44 thoughts on “The Book Was Better”

I loved the book “To Kill a Mockingbird” but I thought the movie was better than the book because it retained the good plot points and essence of the book but it removed the excess things that were good in the book but necessarily for a movie. I also felt the same about “The Green Mile”, “Gone With the Wind” movies as well in that the movies were superior to the books.

Oh if you ever get the chance to read the books or see the movies or both, you will enjoy either one. I think the most disappointing book adaptation was “The Shining” by Stephen King. The original movie with Jack Nicholson was HORRIBLE compared to the book and even Stephen King did not like the movie. The movie was all about Nicholson’s character, whereas the main character in the book, the little boy, was shoved to a supporting role in the movie. Blecchhh lol!

Movies can be great at pulling out the essence of a story, the great rattling plot that might be encumbered by too many subplots and overblown language or description – such as with LOTR.
I haven’t read it myself (so I guess this is a bit of a cheat) but my other half read Jaws by Peter Benchley, the book Spielberg based the film on and he said it was rubbish – much improved on the screen.

Absolutely! It seems these days, though that studios are too scared to invest in something completely original – it all has to be adaptations, remakes, reboots, reimaginings. Not always a bad thing – but it does mean we tend to get a lot more of anything that’s been successful. Super hero movies, for example

Haha!I’m pretty tired of them, I must admit, especially now the studios have used the best ones and are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find heroes which haven’t been used yet – Ant Man, anyone?

True. I try not to watch them, but have an eleven year old who wants to be Iron Man, so … And the Wolverines were rubbish, you’re right. Until people stop watching them in their millions, the studios will keep making them

Really? You mean there are more? They can’t be much good though, if it’s taken so long to make a film based on them. Maybe the market will be so flooded with superhero films, people will finally O.D on them. Or maybe, they’ll sink so far into the culture, it will be nigh on impossible to get any other kind of film made in Hollywood …

Devil Wears Prada’s my go-to example for this. The script cleaned up all sorts of problems the book had. I agree on LOTR, too… Tolkien got carried away with the mythology aspect, not surprising given his background, so those books barely read like novels for me.

Is The Devil Wears Prada the one with Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep? I think? Could be way off. I somehow know that they’re in it (maybe) but I have no idea what it’s about. Maybe fashion. I only read parts of the first LOTR book. Had no interest after that.

Yes… You don’t need an interest in fashion to enjoy the movie. (Honestly, though, I don’t know what interests you would need to enjoy the book… Too many holes in it!) I made it through all of the LOTR books in middle school, didn’t enjoy them, then tried listening to the audio of the first one as an adult and remembered why I didn’t enjoy them!

The Hunger Games. And the Harry Potter series. Have to respectfully disagree about LOTR, given I’ve read the books about twenty times, and as for the Hobbit movie(s) – well, the first one was barely ok and the last two dreadful. And I’m fence-sitting on Game of Thrones…but I’m leaning towards the series as being better than the books.

Whoa. You think The Hunger Games and Harry Potter movies were better than the books!? Nope. Disagree there. I stopped watching The Hobbit movies after the first was a train wreck. Haven’t watched it read Game of Thrones.

Jurassic Park, LOTR, and Willy Wonka are good examples. I would throw in The Maze Runner as one that immediately comes to my mind. As does Sex and The City – which actually was a book before it was a show!

Then you have movies that are equally good as the book, like Gone Girl, or The Princess Bride. Honestly, there are a LOT of classic movies based on books that I have never picked up, so I can’t give an informed opinion about some of them (like whether or not The Wizard of Oz was a better movie or a book. It is a super classic movie, but that doesn’t mean the book was bad, you know?)

I think Children of Men is like that. I liked the movie more than the book. Although both showed the bleakness of the apocalyptic world in their own way, the movie was more intense somehow (which doesn’t happen often). To a certain extent, I could also say the same thing for Star Dust. It’s not that I didn’t like the book, it’s just that the movie draws me to watch it over and over again, but the book doesn’t.

Well, if you ever want to watch a light-hearted fantasy movie with a strong cast of actors, a movie that will lift your spirit, and is meant for the whole family, then try Stardust. It’s based on Neil Gaiman’s novel. If on the other hand you prefer darker, grittier, apocalyptic sceneries, then The Children of Men is a good choice. It’s based on P.D. James’ novel. I recomment both movies (and books, obviously for the comparison).